Daviess County

Here are current, high-level demographics for Daviess County, Missouri.

Population

• Total population: about 8.3k (2023 estimate, U.S. Census PEP)

Age

• Median age: about 41 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~26%
• 65 and older: ~19%

Gender

• Female: ~49–50%
• Male: ~50–51%

Race and ethnicity

• White alone: ~95–96%
• Black or African American alone: ~0.5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.4%
• Asian alone: ~0.2%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2% (note: overlaps with race categories)

Households

• Total households: ~3.1k (ACS 2018–2022)
• Average household size: ~2.6–2.7 persons

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (Vintage 2023); American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates; QuickFacts for Daviess County, MO.

Summary for Daviess County, Missouri (pop. ~8.4k; ~15 people/sq. mile)

Estimated email users: 5,500–6,300 residents (about 65–75% of the population), reflecting strong adoption among adults but tempered by rural access gaps and a sizable Amish community around Jamesport.

Age distribution (share using email):

• 13–17: ~60–70%
• 18–29: ~90–95%
• 30–49: ~92–96%
• 50–64: ~80–90%
• 65+: ~55–70%

Gender split: Approximately even (about 49–51% each).

Digital access and trends:

• Roughly 70–75% of households report a home broadband subscription; the remainder rely on mobile-only access or have no subscription.
• Fiber coverage is expanding via regional rural telcos, but many outlying areas still depend on fixed wireless or satellite.
• Mobile coverage is strongest along I‑35 (Gallatin/Pattonsburg corridor) and spottier on secondary roads and farms.
• Public Wi‑Fi (e.g., libraries and schools) remains an important access point.
• Adoption is rising slowly as fiber builds reach more homes, but older adults and tech-limited households lag.

Notes: Estimates combine rural U.S. usage patterns, ACS-style household connectivity trends, and local demographics; actual figures vary by township and proximity to fiber or highway corridors.

Below is a county-level snapshot drawn from available state/federal datasets and rural market patterns as of 2024. Figures are estimates and ranges, with emphasis on how Daviess County differs from Missouri overall.

Headline takeaway

• Daviess County’s mobile usage looks more “rural Midwest” than Missouri overall: slightly fewer smartphone users, more prepaid and basic‑phone use, heavier reliance on mobile hotspots for home internet, and bigger performance gaps away from the I‑35 corridor. A notable Amish community around Jamesport further lowers smartphone adoption versus the state average.

User estimates

• Population/households: ~8–8.5k residents; roughly 3.0–3.3k households.
• Mobile phone users (any phone): about 6,000–7,000 residents use a mobile device regularly. This is modestly lower (as a share of population) than Missouri overall due to age mix and Amish households.
• Smartphone users: roughly 5,000–5,500 users (lower share than Missouri’s ~85–90% adult smartphone adoption). Expect a higher share of flip/basic phones among older adults and in Amish-adjacent households.
• Wireless-only households (no landline): approximately 55–65% in the county vs roughly 65–75% statewide. Rural seniors and Amish communities keep this share below the state average.
• Prepaid vs postpaid: prepaid likely 25–35% of lines (higher than state average) given lower incomes, credit constraints, and seasonal/agricultural work patterns.

Demographic factors shaping usage

• Older age profile than Missouri overall: more 55+ residents, which correlates with lower smartphone and app adoption, more voice/text usage, and some continued landline reliance.
• Income/education: somewhat lower median household income than state average; this maps to more budget plans, shared data, and device longevity (keeping phones longer).
• Amish/Mennonite presence (notably around Jamesport): reduces overall smartphone penetration and shifts some communication to community phones/landlines and basic devices. This is a key difference from the state picture.
• Commute/coverage pattern: residents clustered near Gallatin and along I‑35 report better performance and usage of data-heavy apps; off‑corridor farm and homestead locations see more signal boosters and conservative data use.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Macro coverage pattern:
  • I‑35 corridor: generally strong LTE and 5G “low-band” coverage from all three national carriers; best speeds and reliability are along the highway and in/near Gallatin.
  • Off‑corridor rural areas: coverage becomes patchy, with more reliance on low-band spectrum (700/850 MHz and 600 MHz) and noticeable indoor gaps in valleys, timber, or metal‑roof structures.
• 5G specifics:
  • T‑Mobile’s extended‑range 5G (600 MHz) is broad but often capacity‑limited away from the corridor; mid‑band (2.5 GHz) capacity is most consistent near the highway and towns.
  • Verizon’s C‑band and AT&T’s mid‑band 5G are more spot/corridor‑centric; outside those zones, service falls back to LTE/low‑band 5G. mmWave is not a factor.
• Tower density: typical rural grid with multi‑mile spacing; handoffs and signal quality improve along I‑35 and degrade on gravel/secondary roads—more so than in most Missouri metro or micropolitan counties.
• Public safety and resilience:
  • FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) presence is strongest near the corridor and towns; volunteer fire/EMS and law enforcement still lean on VHF/UHF for backstop in fringe areas.
  • Weather and power events can isolate pockets with limited cellular fallback due to sparse fiber backhaul diversity.
• Backhaul and fiber:
  • Regional fiber cooperatives and rural ISPs have been expanding, but fiber-to-the-home is still uneven compared with Missouri’s metro counties. Residents outside town limits more often use mobile hotspots or fixed wireless for home broadband.
  • Expect additional fiber builds through 2025–2027 from BEAD/ARPA-funded projects in North/North‑Central Missouri, but coverage will remain spotty in low‑density tracts.
• Wi‑Fi reliance:
  • Schools, libraries, and community centers are important connectivity anchors; usage spikes during planting/harvest and severe-weather periods when mobile networks are congested.

How Daviess County differs from Missouri overall

• Adoption mix: lower smartphone penetration and higher basic‑phone share due to older population and the Amish community.
• Plan mix: higher prepaid share; more device turnover delays (keeping phones longer).
• Connectivity at home: higher reliance on mobile hotspots and fixed wireless; fewer households with cable/fiber than the state average.
• Coverage consistency: larger performance gap between highway/town locations and off‑corridor areas; more frequent need for signal boosters and Wi‑Fi calling.
• 5G reality: broad low‑band coverage but less mid‑band capacity countywide; in metro Missouri, mid‑band 5G is more prevalent and consistent.
• Public safety/continuity: greater dependence on VHF and FirstNet corridor coverage; less backhaul redundancy than urban counties.

Practical implications for planners and providers

• Prioritize additional mid‑band 5G sectors and fiber backhaul off the I‑35 spine to stabilize speeds and indoor coverage.
• Targeted indoor coverage solutions (repeaters, small cells) for public buildings and businesses outside town centers.
• Outreach and plans tailored to older adults and non‑smartphone users; transparent hotspot policies for home‑internet substitution.
• Coordinate with regional fiber co‑ops to reduce mobile network congestion where fixed service is weak.

Daviess County, MO social media snapshot (2025, best-available estimates)

Population baseline

• Residents: ~8,400 (2020 Census; small decline since)
• 13+ population: ~7,300
• Estimated monthly social media users (13+): ~5,500–6,000 (75–82% of 13+), reflecting rural usage patterns, smartphone access, and national adoption rates

Most-used platforms (share of residents 13+)

• YouTube: ~68–75%
• Facebook: ~60–68%
• Instagram: ~30–40%
• TikTok: ~28–36%
• Snapchat: ~25–32%
• Pinterest: ~22–30% (female-skewed)
• LinkedIn: ~8–12% (mostly 25–44 working professionals)
• X/Twitter: ~8–12%
• Reddit: ~8–12%
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited coverage in rural areas)

Age-group patterns (share using any social; most-used platforms)

• Teens 13–17: 90–95%; YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram; Facebook used mainly for teams/schools
• 18–29: ~90%; YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; Facebook still common
• 30–44: ~85%; Facebook, YouTube; growing Instagram/TikTok; Pinterest popular among parents
• 45–64: ~75%; Facebook and YouTube dominate; light Instagram/TikTok
• 65+: ~55–65%; Facebook and YouTube for news, family, church; minimal elsewhere

Gender breakdown (directional)

• Overall social users roughly track population (~50/50)
• Platforms skew: Pinterest (majority women), Instagram/TikTok (slight female tilt), Facebook (slight female tilt), YouTube (slight male tilt), Reddit (male-skewed), X/Twitter (male-leaning)

Behavioral trends

• Community and information: Heavy reliance on Facebook Groups/Pages for schools, churches, youth sports, local government, emergency management, road closures, and obituaries
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace and local buy/sell/trade groups are primary channels for used goods, farm/ranch equipment, vehicles, and seasonal items
• Content formats: Short videos and photo albums outperform text; live streams for school sports, church services, fairs
• Local events: Spikes around county fairs, school sports seasons, severe weather, and elections; strongest engagement for hyperlocal issues and faces people recognize
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the default; group chats for teams and clubs; Snapchat prevalent among teens/young adults
• Time-of-day: Engagement peaks early morning (7–9am) and evenings (8–10pm); weekends outperform weekdays
• Advertising: Best ROI via boosted Facebook posts targeting a 15–30 mile radius; giveaways and limited-time offers drive comments/shares; creative with people/places locals recognize performs best
• Trust dynamics: Word-of-mouth and admin-moderated groups matter; rumor control by known local figures (coaches, pastors, county offices) is influential

Notes on method and confidence

• County-level platform stats are not directly published. Figures above are estimates derived by applying recent Pew Research national usage rates and rural skews to Daviess County’s age structure, with adjustments for known rural platform preferences (Facebook/YouTube higher; X/Reddit lower).
• For campaign planning, validate with platform ad tools (Meta, Snapchat, TikTok) using county targeting and small test spends to gauge real reach and engagement.